Authority bias is our tendency to be influenced by authority figures. A 1960’s experiment had members of the public (volunteers) ask questions to people hidden behind a screen. Those answering the questions were played by actors. Under the guidance of authority figures, the volunteers administered an electric shock for every wrong answer. The actors would cry out in pain, and so far as the volunteers were concerned, the pain was real. Under instruction, the current was increased for every wrong answer, some exceeding a level that would be fatal. I know a city centre restaurant where someone from head office arrived unannounced one weekend to monitor the sites performance. By Monday morning they had gained access to the safe and the takings. At no point did anyone challenge their authority, or check they were from head office. Many will have experienced the frustration of having their work suggestion dismissed…. Only for later, a senior manager make the same suggestion and having it adopted. If a group decision is to be made, the decision will usually reflect the opinions of the most senior manager in the room. Our tendency is to focus on the messenger rather than the message. There are positive aspects to authority bias. During a global pandemic it helps that millions of people will follow the advice of authority figures. Of course, some people will lean in the opposite direction and have a distrust of all authoritarian advice. This can result in conspiracy theories, particularly is someone with authority, an ‘expert’ encourages the distrust. Most people would advocate a balance. For example, to follow professional advice, but where possible, to fact check and seek alternative opinions. Which brings us to safety. Employees must follow safety policies and food safety management systems. Environmental health officers’ documented actions on inspection reports must be completed. However, when EHO’s recommend soaking cloths (for wiping down surfaces) in a bleach solution, it’s reasonable to consider alternative methods. If EHO’s insist food must be cooled to below 8°C in 90 minutes you might question is this is feasible. When a safety officer insists you wear a hard hat, they must be worn. Although on one course a delegate, who was ex forces told me that on manoeuvres they camouflaged vehicles with netting. During this task they were made to remove army helmets and replace with construction hard hats. Of course, I’ve no way of fact checking this. I do recall one company who, for years had been using the wrong chemical to disinfect surfaces. If an employee identifies such mistakes, it’s good they question rather than blindly follow. Unfortunately, whether these concerns are heard may depend on whether they’re an officer, senior manager, or perceived to be an expert. (PS, I’m not an expert in any of the above, I’m just interested in the subject) The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’

I’m continuing to read and consider how aspects of psychology might be relevant to safety. This week, I was reading about Attention bias. This is where our attention might be biased towards certain elements in our environment, whilst ignoring others. It’s like ‘zooming in’ on certain information which renders us blind to other factors. The implications for safety audits and checks are clear. If we have a pet hate (like, oh, I don’t know, people putting things other than food on chopping boards; car keys, glasses, delivery notes and such) we might focus on this and miss other contraventions. There are wider concerns for management such as ignoring someone for promotion because we’re focussed on their weaknesses whilst ignoring strengths and potential. Or focussing on one measurement of an employee’s productivity. It’s possible to ruin work and personal relationships by focussing on a specific flaw. The tendency to focus on the negative can also be detriment to our own mental health. There are several factors that can bias our attention. External events such as the past performance of an individual, emotional stimuli such as anger, and internal states such as hunger (which can bias our attention towards donuts and chocolate). Avoiding attention bias is difficult. Our brains have a limited capacity of focus, and a mental shortcut such as this helps maintain cognitive efficiency. In some circumstances it helps to avoid stimuli. So, when giving up smoking, our habit might be linked to a cup of tea. When drinking a cup of tea, the stimulus focuses our attention on cigarettes, and it’s hard to stop thinking about having a smoke. I’m not sure if this is relevant to safety. And in some ways, attention bias is a useful trait in safety. There are evolutionary reasons for the bias. Those early humans more aware of dangers in their environment were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Being aware of hazards is clearly a good thing in safety. I also considered this bias in terms of how we can influence others. For example, if a manager is angry or confrontational with an EHO, there may be a strong tendency for the EHO to focus on negative information. Conversely, if we’re calm, confident and welcoming, others are more likely to focus on positive information about us. The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’ I claim no expertise in psychology; I am just keen to learn more. I train food safety and health and safety to levels three and four. Through my website, Hygienie.org I offer online and live streaming courses to individuals and businesses.

Affect Heuristic

The danger of doing something rather than nothing

Clostridium Botulinum

The importance of monitoring and verification

Is the term Danger Zone misleading?

And how to estimate your EHO score for yourself

Understand the difference between validation and verification